The Implausibility of Satan, by Paul Doland

[Bolan Meek]

Since the implausibility of the existence of Satan in the argument presented by
Paul Doland depends on a particular definition of God, I feel that it is germaine
to comment on this model.

I know that orthodox Christian doctrine is that God is omniscient, as well as
omnipresent, and omnipotent, however, even when I was a Bible-believing
Charismatic Christian, I challenged these notions. The passages in the
Bible used as proof-texts for the omniscience of God only show that God
knows what "he" wants to know. There are a couple that are not quoted that
indicates that there is a least one thing God doesn't know: whether there is
any meta-God before "him", and that God chooses to _not_ know those that
don't have a right relationship with "him".

I concluded that God's power made "him" so that "he" could know what "he"
wished, but "he" didn't wish to know everything. Similarly, there are definite
statements that there are some places God is not, such not being with Israelites
coming out of Egypt at times. But I realized that presence has much to do with
perspective. I, for example, am present at my keyboard, in this living room,
in Phoenix, in Maricopa County, in Arizona, in the United States of America,
in the continent of North America, etc., but I am not present in the State of
Pennsylvania.

If I were talking with my guest, my neighbor would not be with me,
but were I chatting a colonist on the moon, my neighbor _would_ be
with me. Presence has much to do with attention and perspective.

Paul's argument would not work with someone who had the understanding
of the nature of God that I did. It has the same weakness, in my opinion,
as the argument against the existence of God known as "the problem of
suffering".

In this argument, the claim is that if God is good, how could "he" allow
suffering? The problem is in the definition of good, and the idea that
suffering is bad. My perspective was, from what I learned in the Bible,
that all belongs to God, for "his" purposes, so what fit "his" purposes was
good, - oh, and it was beneficial to those on "his" side.

The suffering of "his" enemies was, therefore, good, and that all sinners
deserved to suffer, as I did, before I was in a right relationship with God.

So, anyway, both of these kinds of arguments could hold no value with
me when I was a Bible-believer, since they depended on definitions with
which I disagreed. But I appreciate Paul's use of the definition: if it were
so, God's omniscience, and presumed goodness, would keep there from
being a Satan.

My thanks to not only Paul, but all who have persistently challenged my faith
in what I thought where spiritual experiences, but most of all for those who
have shown that the Bible is so full of contradictions and errors that it can not
be the "Word of God", and especially to Earl Doherty, for developing a
consistent and cogent analysis of the "New Testament" and of early
Christianity, as shown on http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle .

[Paul Doland]

Hello, and thank your for your feedback on my article. It seems you mostly agree with me, though you argue that some theists would define God differently (such as you yourself did) and therefore not be swayed by my arguments.

I suppose this may be true. I've discussed theology with a lot of different theists, and they all seem to have their own different ways of trying to reconcile reality with scripture. It seems as though most theists recognize "something doesn't add up" somewhere, and therefore concoct their own theology to try to resolve whatever "doesn't add up". But as I said, the concoction to solve the inconsistecies of theology seem to be different for every different theist. At least somewhat, as I hear a lot of different "explanations" to my questions.

So, ultimately, no single article could hope to refute every possible variation or theology. But, it does seem that at least a large number of Christians hold at leastly mostly traditional views of Satan. In other words, it seems to me that a large number of Christian's views of Satan are shown to be unbelievable by my arguments. If I haven't disproved every possible variation of the theme, so be it, it would be impossible to do so.

By the way, I also agree that Doherty is good. Just to let you know, if you go to his Age of Reason site (which is a sister-site, focusing on his other book, _Challenging the Verdict_,) you'll find that he endores my article on Satan, and has a quotation from it. You can find his quotation of me by going to www.ageofreason.org, then click the link for reader feedback, then click the link for topic 3 (Satan).

[Edited to fix broken link. -DM-]

[Lyn]

Wow. your thread completely intrigues me. However, shouldn't the question be, "Is the Bible reliable?"

If you delve into those questions, many of which have been answered by former atheist Lee Strobel in his book, "The Case For Christ" you would find not only a host of historical evidence and archelolgical, but other evidence that, when weight against the alternative, comes out ahead.

And if, when weighing the evidence, the evidence supporting the case For Christ actually existing and For the bible being reliable, then choosing to not have faith in it, is foolish.

[-DM-]

Lyn:

Strictly speaking, your comments do not constitute legitimate feedback per the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10) for the reason that you have supplied no evidence and no argument for your assertions other than a reference to Lee Strobel's less-than-convincing book. However, because the Secular Web has published a critique or two of Strobel's book, I have gone ahead and validated your post. It is suggested that interested readers read the following for starters:

The Rest of the Story (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html), a review of Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ by Jeffery Jay Lowder (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/index.shtml).

Critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/strobel.shtml) by Paul Doland.

Objections Sustained (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kyle_gerkin/objections_sustained/index.shtml), a critque of Lee Strobel's The Case For Faith, by Kyle Gerkin (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kyle_gerkin/index.shtml).

Free Advertising Isn't the Point (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel2.html) by Jeffery Jay Lowder (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/index.shtml).

-Don-

[Paul Doland]

Lyn,

As Don noted, your posting really didn't have anything to do with my article. However, since he gave you some resources on critiques of Strobel (including my own of _The Case for Faith_,) I'd like to add one more possible resource. Earl Doherty has written a point-by-point counter argument book to _The Case for Christ_, his book is entitled _Challenging the Verdict_. Though I'd recommend reading the whole book, he does have excerpts available for free on his site, at:

http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/CTVExcerptsIntro.htm

[Bolan Meek]

-DM-, Paul, Lyn's challenge may be more on track than it seems at first, in fact I had that in the back of my mind while composing my first feedback. The gist of my critique is that Christians who form their theology from reading the Bible, rather than from merely accepting the traditional "orthodox" view, or even the doctrinal position of whatever church they are attending, may easily be unaffected by logical attacks such as "the Problem of Suffering" or "the Existence of Satan".

For these, among whom I was, only exposure of the Bible as being a collection of fables, pious fraud, and results of misdirected self-hypnosis in the guise of ecstatic prophecy, can free their minds from the clutches of religious deception. This was why I concluded with the gratitudes I specified at the end of my essay, but I wish I had included more.

Other instrumental sites, for me, were http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep , and here on the Secular Web, http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/index.shtm. http://www.talkorigins.org was also helpful.

In fact there's a whole raft of cogent challenges to the Christian faith here, that can debunk both orthodox and fundamentalist belief structures. Of course, one must be open to the challenge.

I was closed for a long time, convinced that my "experiences of the Holy Spirit" and of healing, in ways seemingly consistent with passages of Scripture, validated the New Testament, and that reliance of Jesus on what Moses said validated the Old. My freedom came after a long chain of events and exposures that left the pillars of my faith crumbling, including the testimony of those in antiChristian religions of their "spiritual experiences", reading horrendous church history, reflection that -if there are "lying signs and wonders" (2 Thess. 2.9), how can any such be relied upon as witnesses to truth?- , realization of prayer as being self-hypnosis, and evidence that "mystical experience" has its root in a particular region of the brain.

Perhaps Lyn is coming from the same perspective I had, or maybe she has gotten that deep into it all (projection is a common mental exercise, isn't it?).

But anyway, I recognize that Paul's essay can be effective for other kinds of Christians, those whose faith is primarily intellectual or traditional in a orthodox vein.

[Paul Doland]

I agree that TalkOrigins is a good site. I link to it in my Strobel critique. I'm not sure what else to say in response to your comments. Basically, my little Satan article has rather modest goals, and I personally think it meets those modest goals.

[Abdul Alhazred]

I think the original post that started this thread kind of sideways crept up on the nit in all the various forms of the 'suffering' argument. The nit is that God would NOT be subject to OUR rules of morality.

In fact because the conditions of God's existence are quite different from our human condition it cannot be said that even if He DID have to follow the same rules we do that the the very same actions would have the same moral connotations for God that they would for a human being.

Take killing for example. God has the power of life and death. For us killing is an irrevocable act by which we deprive others of the life of a fellow human being. In the context of an omnipotent creator killing someone has no moral connotation in and of itself, God can just as easily give life as take it away. Its no more immoral for Him to blot someone out than it is for us to flip a light switch.

Finally, who are WE to be telling a being which is ostensibly the absolute ruler of the universe what is and isn't right and proper?

These sorts of arguments have ABSOLUTELY no value in terms of impuning the moral position of Christianity whatsoever. They're simply taking a human perspective, incorrectly applying that frame of reference to God, and then deducing erroneous conclusions.

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT a Christian and not trying to save God from logic, I just see the entire exercise as fairly ridiculous. The Bible as the word of God is in any case patently balderdash for 1001 other perfectly mundane reasons.

[Paul Doland]

Hello, Abdul,

Excuse me for being blunt, but, I find your comments on the bizarre side. I am aware that theists often use the arguments that God is not subject to the same morality He (supposely) has given us. And therefore arguments such as mine are therefore moot. But then you say:

"Don't get me wrong, I am NOT a Christian and not trying to save God from logic, I just see the entire exercise as fairly ridiculous. The Bible as the word of God is in any case patently balderdash for 1001 other perfectly mundane reasons."

The problem is, a theist can (and often do) ignore all the "1001 other perfectly mundane reasons" for the exact same reason. They will say that God's way is not our way. And so all the "mundane reasons" in the world are (to them) moot. It becomes difficult to discuss the topic intellegently when people say, "I really don't care how good your arguments are". My article can only be of value to a reader who is at least slightly open to the idea of applying logic to the concept of Satan. That is all my paper tries to do. I think that is all it can do.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Paul Doland
The problem is, a theist can (and often do) ignore all the "1001 other perfectly mundane reasons" for the exact same reason. They will say that God's way is not our way. And so all the "mundane reasons" in the world are (to them) moot. It becomes difficult to discuss the topic intellegently when people say, "I really don't care how good your arguments are". My article can only be of value to a reader who is at least slightly open to the idea of applying logic to the concept of Satan. That is all my paper tries to do. I think that is all it can do. [/B]

And my response was simply to point out that you ignore the conditions under which the putatative God operates. I don't think you CANNOT argue logically. I simply think that your argument has holes in it! I pointed out one or two of them, such as the ridiculousness of accusing God of cruelty when he obliterates someone's life given that he has infinite power to give it back again. I would WELCOME a discussion that took into account these features of God.

Please also note, I have never maintained that Satan IS logical. I simply critique your argument for concluding that Satan is NOT logical (and at that I may except some of your points and not others).

And I'm sorry I didn't enumerate my reasons for not believing in God for you, it just didn't seem on topic. In the future I will be more specific and less general in my statements, lest you be templted to overuse the Musashi-like blade of your logic chopper on me ;o).

[Paul Doland]

Abdul,

I'm wondering, are we still talking about my Satan paper? At least in that paper, I don't accuse God of cruelty.

[Abdul Alhazred]

You have mentioned the argument through suffering several times here, and the same general comments could be applied to many of the other threads of logic present in your paper.

In general: Don't appeal to statements regarding what God can and cannot do, Christians are certainly never going to be impressed with that at all...

[-DM-]

Abdul:

I think that Paul Doland has already "responded" to your suggestion: "In general: Don't appeal to statements regarding what God can and cannot do, Christians are certainly never going to be impressed with that at all." As Paul said, "My article can only be of value to a reader who is at least slightly open to the idea of applying logic to the concept of Satan. That is all my paper tries to do. I think that is all it can do."

My personal opinion is that Paul's paper does a good job of accomplishing what Paul describes as his goal. I don't think it is up to your, me, or anyone else to tell him to what he should "appeal" based on what allegedly will and will not impress Christians. As a former Christian, however, I am not at all sure that you have a handle on what Christians are "never going to be impressed ... [by] ... at all." Even as a Christian, I maintained (or tried to maintain) a rational approach to such things as what "God" could and could not do, and to remain open to new ways of looking at things and to new knowledge. And so did many other Christians that I knew.

Regards,
-DM-

P.S. I'll let Paul know about your most recent feedback.

[Edited to correct typo. -DM-]

[Paul Doland]

Actually, no I didn't. It is Bolan Meek's posts in this thread that reference the "argument from suffering". He said that my paper has the same weakness as the "argument from suffering".

However, I did not use that argument. Well, I guess you could say I did because I mentioned God's torment of Job. But it wasn't so much Job's suffering that I was complaining about, it was the fact that God allows Himself to be talked into doing things by Satan. Why is the all-good God Almighty allowing Himself to be talked into doing mean stuff by the Prince of Darkness?

But, as far as the argument from sufferring, I am aware of the usual theistic responses. Some would respond as you say they would, that God is not subject to the same moral laws He has given us.

However, other theists would respond differently. Some would say, that God is indeed a "moral" being, its just that He has a broader view to where He can see what will be more "moral" in the long term. And so, the theory goes, if we could see what He could see, we would see that long term, He always acts "morally".

I'm not personally swayed by these counter-arguments, but I do know that is at least the two common theistic responses to the "argument from sufferring". But, since this really isn't relevant to my Satan paper, I won't bother to go into to my counter-counter arguments at this time. Suffice it to say, yes, I do know the theistic responses.

[OAG]

Please pardon me for jumping in here uninvited.

Originally posted by Paul Doland
The problem is, a theist can (and often do) ignore all the "1001 other perfectly mundane reasons" for the exact same reason.

I would simply like to point out that ignoring things is hardly a charge one can level at theists as though they are guilty of it in greater measure than anyone else.

They will say that God's way is not our way. And so all the "mundane reasons" in the world are (to them) moot. It becomes difficult to discuss the topic intellegently when people say, "I really don't care how good your arguments are".

It is also difficult to discuss intelligently with people who falsely believe their logic, understanding, etc. to be some sort of objective standard. One of the traits I find common among skeptics is the false belief that they view reality objectively. This makes a great many subjective views moot to them as well.

Please consider that your critiques of the methods and actions of others may be an indictment of your own actions.

My article can only be of value to a reader who is at least slightly open to the idea of applying logic to the concept of Satan. That is all my paper tries to do. I think that is all it can do.

"Tries to do" being the key phrase I believe. I have not read the article specifically referenced by this thread but I did read another you wrote and I must say that I find your insistance that your logic is THE logic to be rather presumptious. I merely wish to point out that drawing logical conclusions from weak or false premises is a fun way to pass the time and share thoughts but in no way makes YOUR logic conclusive or irrefutable.

I would, nonetheless, be interested in reading said arguments on Satan if someone would provide me with a link.

[-DM-]

OAG:

Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback regarding The Implausibility of Satan
(http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=310) by Paul Doland. E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post.
-DM-

[Paul Doland]

OAG,

Don left you a link to my paper on the Implausibility of Satan. If you choose to read it and have comments on it, I'll be happy to try to answer them.

[OAG]

Paul
From the careful what you wish for files I give you:
Please forgive the length of this post. I found the Satan angle intriguing as most skeptics work the angle from the improbability of God. There were so many good arguments and I wanted to address them all as succinctly as possible. I hope I have done justice to a well-reasoned article even though I’ve snipped a few sentences here and there for brevity.
Say that God did create this supernatural being that turned evil. How is it possible that an omniscient God would not know that Satan would turn evil? Actually, some have argued that God did know it would happen, so let's look at the question from both angles. If God did know Satan would turn evil, why would God have created Satan? If I made proverbial widgets, and I could tell that one of my widgets wasn't going to meet my needs, wouldn't I be a fool to make it anyway? If God knew his creation would turn evil, and created Satan anyway, doesn't that mean God wanted Satan to turn evil or that He was at least ambivalent about it?
Satan was one of many heavenly beings who turned evil. First of all the turning evil simply means to turn against God does it not? Why then did some turn against God and some did not? What caused some to do or prevented others from doing it? The only possible answer is choice. Some chose to rebel against God and some chose to remain loyal. Now the question comes, if God knew which ones would turn against Him then why didn’t He create only the ones who wouldn’t? I think the answer to that is obvious. By preventing the creation of the ones who would make the wrong choice God would be eliminating the choice.
Let’s say God simply creates the universe in such a way that rebellion from Him is not possible. What would the beings in that universe be like? Since God created all beings out of Himself they would be nothing but extensions of His will. There would be no choice but to do what God wishes and they would be puppets dancing on His strings.
God created Satan, angels, archangels, humans and only God knows what other beings to have the choice. We can reject God. That is the only way there can be any meaning to it when we don’t. If I twist my child’s arm behind his back and tell him to say he loves me do I get a sincere expression of love?
Some have said that Satan's turning evil was known, and taken into account in God's long-term plan. But why would an all-good God need an evil Satan in His long-term plans? One would think that an all-good God would be able to enact whatever plans He has without need of an evil super-being.
Super-being, lesser angel, whatever. In the hierarchy of those cast out from God’s presence someone was going to take the forefront in the fight against God. Evil is evil no matter what form, strength, or power it exerts.
One would think? Would that be one human being without the divine perspective on how things need to be in order for them to work to the ultimate good? Can you or I or anyone else determine what that better way is more than the Creator could?
What if God didn't know that Satan would turn evil? Wouldn't that mean that God is not omniscient? Some argue that because of free will, God's omniscience does not give God the ability to know what decisions will be made by His creations. So perhaps, by giving Satan free will, God did not know what Satan would do.
I rather think that the Creator of the universe would be a brilliant mathematician, analyst, prognosticator, etc. I think He would understand the laws of probability pretty thoroughly. The only possible contention for God being remotely unsure of what would happen after He created Satan is that there would have been no real after. God and Satan, at that point, would exist outside of time. There would be a sort of continuity to events but not necessarily a chronology. God can see into the future of our temporal universe because He created it from beginning to end in the blink of an eye…so to speak. For we temporal humans to discuss the creation of Satan in terms of when it happened and what happened at some later time is an interesting anomaly. We don’t understand anything but continuity in time and space.
But shouldn't a perfect God at least have considered the possibility and made some sort of contingency plan?
You mean like how to redeem the lost and rebellious through some sort of divine act of sacrifice? What a good idea.
Let's move on and assume that somehow Satan did turn evil--whether or not God knew it would happen. Why did God not immediately destroy Satan?
Satan, like us, is created in God’s image. God created Him out of love. Because of that love and the perfection of His creation He would not undo it. Also, it becomes a matter of removing Satan’s choice. If God annihilates anyone who chooses wrongly then He is still removing that option, no?
Why let Satan do evil in the meantime?
Free will.
If God can stop Satan now, and doesn't, isn't God guilty of allowing evil?
Guilty? Is God on trial with you as His judge? Yes, God allows evil.
Isn't God acting as an accomplice to evil?
Couldn’t an all-powerful God make great good result from evil? If a young girl is raped, that is an evil event by our reckoning. Why would God allow that? What if that girl becomes a proponent for other potential rape victims? What if she establishes a clinic, teaches classes in self-defense, lends comfort and care to other victims? She devotes her life to the service of others and causes immense good…all because she was raped. Think about it.
So we have Satan, a powerful being, who is intent on corrupting man. Why does Satan only do things surreptitiously? For example, why doesn't Satan shoot intense pain through every human on Earth until they confess their allegiance to him? I know that Christians say God acts as a "hidden God" because He wants to see if we will freely choose Him. But it seems unlikely that Satan, a pure evil being, would have any such motivation. So why doesn't Satan just come on down and kill everybody or do whatever evil he feels like?
Good questions. Let’s see shall we? A while back you asked, why God doesn’t limit the power of Satan to cause harm? Now you ask why Satan doesn’t appear to have unlimited power to cause harm. Perhaps you’ve answered you own question.
Why doesn’t Satan use pain to corrupt humans? If Satan is the cause of pain do you really believe that humans would swear allegiance to him just to make it stop? If it were not for the belief that God is more powerful than Satan then Satan might be the final recourse. With the belief that God is actually more powerful than Satan comes the obvious answer that if Satan causes pain to shoot through people a great many of them would cry out to God for release from it.
Maybe God wouldn't allow Satan to act so bold? Then why does God let Satan operate surreptitiously? God allows Satan to do surreptitious evil? This doesn't seem to make any sense.
Let’s go back to the young rape victim. Suppose that Satan has whispered in the ear of the rapist to rape AND kill the young girl but God sees to it that the police show up in time to prevent her murder. We’ve already seen how the rape leads to a greater good than anyone can imagine (this is hypothetical and I’m only discussing potential for good not in any way justifying rape). If the girl is murdered then that potential for great good remains unrealized. By allowing the girl to survive God will not have taken away any person’s free will. God will not have entirely thwarted Satan’s attempt to instigate evil. In the end though, Satan and the rapist’s immediate evil accomplishment will be vastly overshadowed by the immense good God will work through that event. Satan’s attempts to instigate evil then might be consistent but short sighted and not as effective in the long run as he would like.
{snip}You might think I'm being sacrilegious but the point is that, although some theologies may sound logical when you read them in a book, when you try to take them off the pages of the book and see how they work in actual practice, they are exposed as just being pat answers that have no real value.
Your interplay between Satan and God completely ignores the free will of the humans involved. You speak as though Satan and God are merely deciding who gets to pull which strings on which puppets to see how they dance. I suggest that God and Satan, more or less, represent the alternative choices between good and evil.
However, if Satan does anything at all to influence man, how can man be said to have free will given that Satan has supernatural powers and we don't?
Why do you insist on such a separation between the natural influences on us and the supernatural ones? Do you, somehow, know for a fact that the supernatural ones will be more irresistible than the natural ones? Does the influence to do something evil outweigh the influence of hunger or thirst in every situation? We are influenced in millions of ways throughout our lives. Friends, family, foes, drugs, illness, weather conditions, our mood, etc.; can all have a tremendous influence on our million daily decisions. Satan whispering evil ideas in someone’s ear is just one more influence in a sea of influences. He cannot force a human into an evil act.
How can God really expect us mere mortals to be able to withstand any temptation by a supernatural evil being?
With God’s help of course. If you would read the Bible a bit more carefully you would find that spelled out in numerous places.
If Satan can use supernatural powers--even "a little bit" against us mere mortal humans--how can we truly have free will?
The will to refuse Satan’s influence. Satan did not create us so he cannot destroy us. He can only point the way to our own self-destructive choices and watch in glee as we choose them or in horror as we choose God instead.
Some Christians say that Satan does know he will eventually loose, but that he just wants to take as many people down to hell with him as he can. But how could Satan have ever been dumb enough to even consider revolting against God, knowing full-well that he could not possibly win? And how could have a third of God's angels have been dumb enough to join Satan, as they too should have known from the beginning that they have no real chance to win?
Win what? Satan will not be unmade. Satan wished to be apart from God and he is. That choice is given to all of creation. That Satan may prefer to be God or to destroy God is irrelevant. Have you ever read Milton?
What is the reason for God not revealing Himself to us in obvious ways?
How much more obvious would He need to be? If God appeared in the sky and pointed at you and said, “I’m tired of your disbelief so knock it off,” do you think you would find some other explanation for that or would you fall to your knees and worship Him? For every obvious way in which God has revealed Himself man, in his finite wisdom, has come up with a way to deny that revelation. What makes you think there is some magical way for God to reveal Himself that humans couldn’t deny?
Yet Satan, even though he had proof-positive of God's existence, was still able to choose to disobey God. Thus, if Satan could have proof-positive of God and still have free will to disobey God, then so should we.
Bingo. So you DO have free will to disbelieve in God and you’ve answered your own query. Knowing that God exists does not mean you love Him.
Finally, if Satan could become evil because of free will, how will God ever solve the problem of evil? Couldn't tomorrow, some other creation of God use its free will to turn evil? Couldn't this continue to happen for all eternity? How can heaven be any better than Earth if it is subject to the same problem of free will allowing beings to choose evil?
a) He won’t. Evil will continue to exist.
b) Absolutely.
c) I don’t know for sure but that seems a logical premise.
d) Unlike Earth, those who choose evil leave immediately never to return.

Here is an afterthought for you. Satan and his cohorts chose to rebel against God and were immediately cast out of heaven for eternity. Humans can reject God, ask for forgiveness, be forgiven and end up spending eternity with God. Humans can spend 50 years wallowing in every evil they can dream up and “find God” and be saved. Humans get to be both good and evil embodied every minute of their temporal existence and still be forgiven and accepted as God’s own children. Which would you rather be? Would you rather be the demon who rebelled once and became the embodiment of evil for all eternity (and received the judgment for it) or the temporal human who can experience evil, decide it sucks and seek the forgiveness of God and actually receive it?

[Paul Doland]

I must confess surprise that you actually spent the time to read and consider my arguments. I will need to spend a bit of time to read and consider your arguments. I will try to respond in a day or so.

[-DM-]

A comment awaiting Paul Doland's reply . . .

Originally posted by OAG
There would be no choice but to do what God wishes and they would be puppets dancing on His strings.An omnipotent "God" could have created human beings with so-called free will and yet with the quality of character such that they would make right choices. In fact, the way that I see it, a perfect "God" could not possibly create beings which had even the potential to make wrong choices and still be considered a perfect "God."

How much more obvious would He need to be? If God appeared in the sky and pointed at you and said, “I’m tired of your disbelief so knock it off,” do you think you would find some other explanation for that or would you fall to your knees and worship Him?Don't you believe the Bible? The Bible says that even when "God" has made himself obvious to everyone via the Parousia, some will still refuse to worship him.

-Don-

[OAG]

Originally posted by -DM-
A comment awaiting Paul Doland's reply . . .

An omnipotent "God" could have created human beings with so-called free will and yet with the quality of character such that they would make right choices. In fact, the way that I see it, a perfect "God" could not possibly create beings which had even the potential to make wrong choices and still be considered a perfect "God."

Cut and pasted verbatum from the other thread no?

I suggest that God DID create human beings with the quality of character to make the right choice. The number of humans who have apparently done so is astronomical.

Also, as I pointed out elsewhere but will repeat for any lurkers here, if God designed humans in such a way that none of them would ever, under any circumstances, make choice 2 then the possibility of choice 2 being chosen does not exist and therefor choice is not available.

Don't you believe the Bible? The Bible says that even when "God" has made himself obvious to everyone via the Parousia, some will still refuse to worship him.

-Don-

Isn't that pretty much what I said? That is the perfect example of free choice. You claim that God should make Himself more obvious. He was PERFECTLY obvious to Satan and his cohorts but that didn't affect their choice. God could make Himself more or less obvious in the world without effecting people's decision to accept Him or not.

[OAG]

Originally posted by Paul Doland
I must confess surprise that you actually spent the time to read and consider my arguments.

I guess I had that coming.:D

[Paul Doland]

> Please forgive the length of this post.

No problem. You are the first person to give a good response to my article. However, I assume you won't be surprised if I say I have much to disagree with.

>Why then did some turn against God and some did not?
>What caused some to do or prevented others from doing
>it? The only possible answer is choice.

Does God have choice? I would assume that you would say yes. If so, does God ever choose to do wrong? Actually, we could debate some scripture that seems to say he does do 'evil', but I would assume that you would say no. Which would mean that it is possible to have choice, and yet be certain to never do wrong. Which is what Don also said. I don't believe that God giving choice means that he had to create people that might choose evil. He could have made us where we choose among multiple good choices. After all, that is what God does, right?

>I think the answer to that is obvious. By preventing the
>creation of the ones who would make the wrong choice
>God would be eliminating the choice.

I believe this is a non-sequiter. If all the people that didn't choose God never existed, that doesn't mean that the people that do choose God didn't make a choice. If I didn't exist, and everybody else that didn't choose God didn't exist, that wouldn't mean that you made any less of a choice.

>Let’s say God simply creates the universe in such
>a way that rebellion from Him is not possible.

Actually, that's not what we are saying. He could, with His foreknowedge, know that I wouldn't choose Him, and therefore not create me, and with His foreknowedge of you choosing Him, go ahead and create you. Simply not creating those that would choose wrong doesn't mean that those that choose right make any less of a choice.

>If I twist my child’s arm behind his back and tell
>him to say he loves me do I get a sincere expression of love?

Actually, I address this in my Strobel critique... In order to get a "sincere expression of love" from your child, do you hide in shadows from your child? Do you leave town, but leave a few clues laying around that might or might not lead him/her where you are hiding? And, if/when the child says, "hmm, dad's off his rocker, I think I'll lead my life as I see fit" do you come back, lock him/her up in a room, and light the room on fire? That is your prescription for a "sincere expression of love"? No, if you expect love from your child, you don't hide in shadows. Your prescription for love is a prescription for hate.

>Evil is evil no matter what form, strength,
>or power it exerts. One would think?

In a paragraph I didn't quote, you defined "evil" as simply turning away from God. As a skeptic, I define 'evil' as simply unnecessary/unwarrented pain and sufferring. I don't believe that there is an "evil force" (ala 'the dark side of the force') nor do I believe in a being as the personification of evil force (Satan, Darth Vader, etc.).

>Can you or I or anyone else determine what
>that better way is more than the Creator could?

This is an appeal to the unknown. "God must know what is best". Muslims might say "Allah knows what is best", etc. Presumably, if God/Allah/other diety gave me the ability to reason, he/she/it must have expected me to use it. (With apologies to whomever I am plagerizing...) All I have is my own reason to evaluate things. No, its not always right, but it is all I have.

>God and Satan, at that point, would exist outside of
>time. There would be a sort of continuity to events
>but not necessarily a chronology. God can see into
>the future of our temporal universe because He created
>it from beginning to end in the blink of an eye…so to speak.

Now we are really getting into murky waters, the concept of being non-temporal. In you comments about my Strobel critique, you claimed that Adam and Eve were originally non-temporal. I knew that they were supposed to be immortal (never die) but I had never, ever head anybody else claim they were non-temporal, meaning beyond time as you are saying now. I don't think you have a leg to stand on with that claim, so I'll drop that and move on.

Though currently, most theologists portray God as non-temporal, or beyond time, this really is not how God is portrayed in the Bible. For example, God regrets having even made man before sending the flood. How could God "regret" that which He knew all along what would happen? God knew all along that he was going to "regret" having made man, but does anyway? Then He sends a flood to remove evil from the world, which fails. But of course He knew it was going to fail before He ever did it! No, God in the Bible is clearly a temporal being. Things happen that He doesn't know is going to happen until it does. But that would mean that God isn't omnicient nor omnipotent. So, God has been re-invented as non-temporal. But such a reinvention doesn't jive with the Bible.

So, back to what you said:

>There would be a sort of continuity to events
>but not necessarily a chronology

How can there be a "continuity" without a "chronology"? You're pulling nonsense out of your, um, ear... What you are doing here, is trying to make God both temporal and non-temporal. You are wanting your proverbial cake and eat it to. Well, you can't. God is or isn't temporal. He could still (presumably) recognize the temporal. He could (presumably) know that what I am typing now, is in the year 2003. But that would be like a point on a number line, where He wouldn't have any "preference" for 2003 over 2002 or 1500 or 300 BC. So, God, Himself, is either temporal or nontemporal and you can't have it both ways.

>You mean like how to redeem the lost and rebellious
>through some sort of divine act of sacrifice?
>What a good idea.

So, all the people born before Jesus are screwed? People who never heard of Jesus are screwed? Children who die too young to understand religion are screwed? If you say they are judged differently, then you are implicitly admitting that Jesus isn't necessary for redemption, for at least some people. Or rather, given that would include the majority of the human race who ever lived, it would mean that Jesus isn't necessary for redemption for the majority of people who ever lived.

Besides, why does God feel some sort of sacrifice is necessary for redemption? Why does God think something has to die in order for redemption to occur? I've heard Christianity summed up as, "For God so loved the world that He send His only begotten son to His people, so that His people would kill His son in order to save His people from Himself". Or, a slight variation on this theme: "God so loved the world that He sacrificed Himself to Himself in order to appease His own wrath at His own creation". Seems like He could have come up with something more direct, don't you think?

I said, "why let Satan do evil in the meantime?" and you responded, "free will". This really doesn't answer the question. If someone is doing evil in our society, we take away their free will, assuming we can catch them.

>Couldn’t an all-powerful God make great good result
>from evil? If a young girl is raped, that is an evil
>event by our reckoning. Why would God allow that?
>What if that girl becomes a proponent for other
>potential rape victims? What if she establishes a
>clinic, teaches classes in self-defense, lends
>comfort and care to other victims?

But you see, if God didn't allow rape in the first place, then there would be no need for people to establish clinics, teach self defnese, etc. Your God is making problems, and providing imperfect solutions. If there was no problem to begin with, there would be no need for a solution. Besides, heaven is not supposed to be like this. There isn't supposed to be raping and pillaging in heaven. Or do you think there are rape clinics in heaven too? Assuming that there is not, this proves that allowing evil really isn't necessary.

>If Satan is the cause of pain do you really believe
>that humans would swear allegiance to him just to
>make it stop?

If humans were in sufficient pain, and knew that swearing allegiance to Satan would stop it, certainly. Of course! There are very few people trained in withstanding torture, and even those that are so trained will eventually crack.

Which, by the way, is another problem with the free will argument. Basically, I believe that free will is mostly (perhaps entirely) illusion. Nobody is free from influence. Everybody has influences.

>Let’s go back to the young rape victim. Suppose
>that Satan has whispered in the ear of the rapist
>to rape AND kill the young girl but God sees to it
>that the police show up in time to prevent her
>murder.

Gee, thanks God! You're a pal! Surely you, if you were in the situation where you could stop both the rape and the murder, would do so. So, you would do more than your own God would do.

>We’ve already seen how the rape leads to a greater
>good than anyone can imagine

We've already seen that if there was no problem, there'd be no need for a solution.

>(this is hypothetical and I’m only discussing potential
>for good not in any way justifying rape).

Actually, you are. You just don't want to admit it. You said "greater good". What does the term mean? It means it is better, overall, that it happend. Which is in fact justifying it. You are saying it is okay if God says, "this rape is okay because it will result in a greater good". But that would mean that you should never stop a rape or a murder, for it might lead to a greater good! If it isn't going to, surely God would stop it. So, therefore you shouldn't ever interfere.

>Your interplay between Satan and God completely
>ignores the free will of the humans involved.
>You speak as though Satan and God are merely
>deciding who gets to pull which strings on
>which puppets to see how they dance.

Well, in the book of Job, this is exactly how it is presented. In fact, God admits that He allowed Himself to be talked into ruining Job "for no reason". (Why is God letting Himself be talked into things by the Master of Evil anyway?) Now, you will argue that "but see, Job resisted, he proved he had free will!" But are you to honestly tell me that Job would have never cracked, no matter how long Satan tormented him? If there really was this guy Job (of course, I highly doubt it, but if...) that was tormented and yet remained steadfast, all that it would prove is that Job's breaking point is much higher than the average person. But there is nobody who would never crack. Everybody has limited "free will".

>Why do you insist on such a separation between the
>natural influences on us and the supernatural ones?
>Do you, somehow, know for a fact that the supernatural
>ones will be more irresistible than the natural ones?

Well, given that I don't even believe the supernatural exists, that would imply that the answer to the question, "are supernatural forces more irresistible than natural ones" is an impossible to answer question. But, if the supernatural does exist, what exactly is a supernatural force? What can be done with it? Well, more or less by definition, if the supernatural exists, anything is possible. Including scrambling my brain cells, changing my memories, shooting intense pain, anything. So, if Satan has that kind of power, sure, he should be completely irresistible.

>So you DO have free will to disbelieve in God and
>you’ve answered your own query. Knowing that
>God exists does not mean you love Him.

Huh? What a non-sequiter that is! Let me try once again:

1. Proof positive of God's existence means somebody would not have free will to turn away from God.
2. Therefore, God does not give man proof positive of his existence.
3. Satan had proof positive that God exists.
4. Satan still had free will to turn away from God.

Point 4 disproves point 1.

>Would you rather be the demon who rebelled once and
>became the embodiment of evil for all eternity (and
>received the judgment for it) or the temporal human
>who can experience evil, decide it sucks and seek the
>forgiveness of God and actually receive it?

Basically, you are dividing up God's creatures into two camps, those who are in heaven, and once they rebel, have no recourse; and humans who can rebel up to a point and yet still be forgiven. But, in this scenerio, humans, after they die, then get placed into category 1. They are then in heaven. And, according to your theory, humans are then subject to the "one-strike and you're out" rule of heaven. So, in your scenario, humans, rather than having an advantage over the other heavenly entities who only get the one-strike rule, humans really get the double whammy. They could first screw up on Earth. But if they pass that test and get to heaven, then, like any other heavenly creature, they could still screw up and get thrown out. No advantage--a double whammy.

Now, how many people do you know that will never screw up for all eternity? With that one-strike rule, heaven is gonna be mighy empty after a while...

[-DM-]

Cut and pasted verbatum from the other thread no?No.

I suggest that God DID create human beings with the quality of character to make the right choice. The number of humans who have apparently done so is astronomical.You seem not to believe the Bible when it says that all have sinned, that none is righteous, etc. (Perhaps you didn't realize that I was talking about all choices of all people, not just some choices or some people.)

Also, as I pointed out elsewhere but will repeat for any lurkers here, if God designed humans in such a way that none of them would ever, under any circumstances, make choice 2 then the possibility of choice 2 being chosen does not exist and therefor choice is not available.Designed to make right choices does not mean that choice does not exist.

Isn't that pretty much what I said?You did not make a statement, rather you asked a question.

That is the perfect example of free choice. You claim that God should make Himself more obvious. He was PERFECTLY obvious to Satan and his cohorts but that didn't affect their choice.I doubt if you would be impressed if I were to say, "Bigfoot was PERFECTLY obvious to some people," yet you use a story which I believe to be fictional from a book which contains a considerable amount of plagiarized mythology, to try to convince me that a mythological character such as Satan made a choice to disobey. I am unimpressed. And I think that this discussion has devolved to the point of silliness. Feel free to have the last word.

-Don-

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by -DM-
A comment awaiting Paul Doland's reply . . .

An omnipotent "God" could have created human beings with so-called free will and yet with the quality of character such that they would make right choices. In fact, the way that I see it, a perfect "God" could not possibly create beings which had even the potential to make wrong choices and still be considered a perfect "God."



A perfect and omnipotent God would be limited if he were not able to create imperfect creations, would he not?

People LOGIC CANNOT APPLY to considerations like 'omnipotence', nor to timeless eternal states of things, etc.

I see these errors in everyone's reasoning here. You just cannot say anything meaningful using logic rooted in our limited perspective on these sorts of issues. In my mind logic does not even seem to apply to metaphysics at all, just go read the thread/article on the 'Kalam Argument' and you will see what I mean!!!

[-DM-]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
A perfect and omnipotent God would be limited if he were not able to create imperfect creations, would he not?"God" could not be considered both omnipotent and perfect were "He" unable or unwilling to create perfect creations.

People LOGIC CANNOT APPLY to considerations like 'omnipotence', nor to timeless eternal states of things, etc.This is an unsupported assertion, an assertion with which I disagree.

On the other hand, if we were to accept that "people logic" (which is the only logic we have) does not apply to considerations such as "omnipotence," then the word "omnipotence" loses meaning and there would be little or no point in talking about "God's" alleged omnipotence and what it means, thus making "God" even more meaningless than "He" already is. It is a similar situation with allegedly "timeless eternal states of things."

In my mind logic does not even seem to apply to metaphysics at all, just go read the thread/article on the 'Kalam Argument' and you will see what I mean!!!I have, and I disagree that there is anything meaningful in the way of argument for or against the existence of "God" to which logic does not apply.

-Don-

[-DM-]

[Moved to the General Religious Discussions forum to facilitate open discussion. -DM-]

[OAG]

Originally posted by Paul Doland
Please forgive the length of this post.

It's the nature of point by point rebuttals that they get lengthy. Whaddayagonnado?

Does God have choice? I would assume that you would say yes. If so, does God ever choose to do wrong?

Here is a basic premise that hangs up skeptics. The argument goes that if there is something God cannot do He then lacks omnipotence. The circular logic behing God being limited by an inability to do evil rendering Him less than omnipotent is flawed for a very simple reason. Evil is quite simply going against God. God cannot go against Himself. God cannot do something contrary to God's perfection. If God suffered from multiple personality disorder then it might be possible for Him to do something contrary to His will. In other words the one singular thing that God cannot do is be imperfect. Any parsing of that into minor actions by which to question His omnipotence is foolishness. "If God can't pinch me and make me cry then He must not be omnipotent." These type of statements become absurd because they are from the perspective that evil actions are not directly related to God Himself. God cannot stop being God. That is the one and only "cannot" logicically associated with God and it does not limit nor diminish His character or abilities one bit.

Actually, we could debate some scripture that seems to say he does do 'evil', but I would assume that you would say no.

We could bandy about varied interpretations of most anything all day long. I'd rather try to avoid that sort of thing. I try not to quote scripture and thump the Bible at people because we can all read it for ourselves and I assume you have or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Which would mean that it is possible to have choice, and yet be certain to never do wrong.

Only because God is God and HIS choices will never disagree with HIS perfection. For any of us it is completely different.

Which is what Don also said.

Yeah here's Don again: "Designed to make right choices does not mean that choice does not exist."

Yes it does mean exactly that. If you remove all possibility for X making choice 2 then choice 2 is not an option...therefor NOT a choice. I don't understand how you and Don can wrap your logic around removing an option and still having it be a possible choice. You must be using an alien logic or terminology unfamiliar to me.

I don't believe that God giving choice means that he had to create people that might choose evil.

That's exactly what choice means. It means the ability to choose between 2 or more options. If there is only one possible option then there is no choice. It is simple. Try to complicate it or obfuscate it with semantic parlor tricks all you please.

He could have made us where we choose among multiple good choices. After all, that is what God does, right?

You are absolutely right. God COULD have created us with the option to do only what HE would do and given us no option to do otherwise. We would not, then, have any free will. What would be the good choices when it came to loving God? Love Him a little, or love Him alot, or love Him with sugar and a cherry on top? Is that really free will? Is that really love if there is simply ZERO alternative?

I believe this is a non-sequiter.

I believe you are mistaken.

If all the people that didn't choose God never existed, that doesn't mean that the people that do choose God didn't make a choice.

Yes it does. We are speaking of God knowing before someone actually exists what they will do. In fact then, God would be making the choice FOR them by either allowing them to come into existence or not.

If I didn't exist, and everybody else that didn't choose God didn't exist, that wouldn't mean that you made any less of a choice.

That's a nice little nonsequiter yourself. You do exist, I do exist and the choice does exist. If you and the choice didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this discussion and I would be a puppet on a string.

Actually, that's not what we are saying.

That is EXACTLY what you are saying. For hypothetical purposes I'm simply playing along.

He could, with His foreknowedge, know that I wouldn't choose Him, and therefore not create me, and with His foreknowedge of you choosing Him, go ahead and create you. Simply not creating those that would choose wrong doesn't mean that those that choose right make any less of a choice.

No matter how you slice it this still means that God has seen to it that rebellion against Him is not a possibility. You are jumping back and forth with your hypothetical existence. If you exist in God's mind with the possibility of rebelling against Him and He decides NOT to allow you to exist at all in any way then neither does that possibility for you to rebel. YOU (and every other human being ever) represent that possibility.

In order to get a "sincere expression of love" from your child, do you hide in shadows from your child? Do you leave town, but leave a few clues laying around that might or might not lead him/her where you are hiding? And, if/when the child says, "hmm, dad's off his rocker, I think I'll lead my life as I see fit" do you come back, lock him/her up in a room, and light the room on fire? That is your prescription for a "sincere expression of love"? No, if you expect love from your child, you don't hide in shadows. Your prescription for love is a prescription for hate.

No, that is YOUR take on reality. Mine is a bit different. I have not found God hiding in shadows. I have found Him quite easily because He wanted me to find Him.

If either of my children sees fit to live their life as they please I will let them go do it because I love them. I will wait, in the shadows if necessary, until my child decides he/she needs me again and be there to welcome him/her back into my arms and my home.

BTW, I don't recall any Biblical reference to God locking someone in a room and lighting it on fire.

In a paragraph I didn't quote, you defined "evil" as simply turning away from God. As a skeptic, I define 'evil' as simply unnecessary/unwarrented pain and sufferring

Unnecessary and unwarranted by what standard, what reference point? What you are saying to me is that YOU define evil as anything YOU decide it is. If YOU decide that someone's pain was unnecessary or unwarranted, regardless of circumstances you may know nothing about, then it BECOMES an evil.

I don't believe that pain is inherently good or evil. It is simply a byproduct of being animated bits of carbon with nervous systems that register pain. Without pain to tell us something is wrong we'd be screwed.

I don't believe that there is an "evil force" (ala 'the dark side of the force') nor do I believe in a being as the personification of evil force (Satan, Darth Vader, etc.).

Hence your self-description as a skeptic. I got that.

This is an appeal to the unknown.

Any statement of how the universe should be is too. I'm sure you are aware that if you alter the strength of any of the forces of nature by the tiniest fraction the universe would be utterly different and not at all likely to sustain life. We can speculate all day on what a universe might look like if gravity were a smidge weaker or magnetism was a smidge stronger but it is all hypothetical. The balance appears to be perfect so why argue that it could be better? Speculating on how your hypothetical alterations would improve the universe means working up an entierely different model of THAT universe. Get it? You can't make the fundamental change and have the same universe.

Now we are really getting into murky waters, the concept of being non-temporal. In you comments about my Strobel critique, you claimed that Adam and Eve were originally non-temporal. I knew that they were supposed to be immortal (never die) but I had never, ever head anybody else claim they were non-temporal, meaning beyond time as you are saying now. I don't think you have a leg to stand on with that claim, so I'll drop that and move on.

It is quite simple. If Adam and Eve were never going to die then it stands to reason that they would not age, as we know it, either. One cannot age forever. What is the passage of time to someone unaffected by it?

Though currently, most theologists portray God as non-temporal, or beyond time, this really is not how God is portrayed in the Bible.

Here you are obviously wrong. God is credited with creating EVERYTHING. Time is a function of the temporal universe which God created. We refer to it as the time/space continuum. God could not have created the t/s continuum from within it therefor He exists outside of it. The Bible does not say anything contrary to this.

For example, God regrets having even made man before sending the flood. How could God "regret" that which He knew all along what would happen?

Quite simple. At that point in the t/s continuum those people would perish. That was unfortunate. It was unfortunate that so many of them chose to rebel in som many heinous ways. Quite regrettable.

God knew all along that he was going to "regret" having made man, but does anyway?

Yep. Can you imagine you wife and children getting in a car accident. One of the kids survives but the rest perish. Your joy at the survival of the one child would coincide with your sorrow over those who were lost. Someone asks how you are doing and at that moment in time you are bummed over your loss. At another moment in time you might express elation that you have your beloved child in your arms. As God is relating to humans throughout history they too are moments in time...from our perspective certainly. God was expressing how He felt about THAT moment in time and what was to happen RIGHT THEN. When a little sister falls and scrapes her knee and a big brother, out of love, kisses it and makes her laugh, THEN ask God if at that moment He regrets creating man.

Then He sends a flood to remove evil from the world, which fails.

Read a little more carefully who and what He was removing from the world. Genesis refers to the Nephilim. I'll leave the rest to your discretion. Since there is no later mention of the Nephilim I believe God succeeded.

No, God in the Bible is clearly a temporal being.

Then He's also a liar because He said He was not. Once again you are reducing God to some idea of a god contrary to what the Bible says through careful selection and misinterpretation.

Things happen that He doesn't know is going to happen until it does.

Wrong. That statement is unsupportable.

How can there be a "continuity" without a "chronology"?

We measure the movement of time with a watch. We see stars come into being and perish in a blaze of glory from old age. We see things get used up, turned into something else, etc. Now picture a "place" where those thing which exist are unchanging and eternal? By what method would you measure the passage of time. What would you mark it against. There is no candle burning down. There is no sand falling through an hour glass.

An event takes place. You ask, "When did that happen?" Do I answer, "5 minutes ago?"

Now you are going to say that you thought I said things were unchanging but an event means something changed. The point is when did something change? There is simply no answer to when. Another event happens. How many years between the two? Years are revolutions of the earth around the sun but those don't exist yet. The events flow from one to another with continuity but no measure of time is upon them. BTW, the unchanging part happens after the event. What is created may remain unchanging for the "rest" of eternity.

What you are doing here, is trying to make God both temporal and non-temporal.

Not at all. God is who He is and I can't make Him one thing or another. WE interact with God temporally. Therefor to us His actions have a chronology. Jesus came to earth 2000 or so years before you and I came into existence. How long ago did Satan come into existence? How many years? Who knows? Satan and God didn't live under the sun like we do.

God is or isn't temporal.

I'll take isn't for 200 Alex.

He could still (presumably) recognize the temporal. He could (presumably) know that what I am typing now, is in the year 2003. But that would be like a point on a number line, where He wouldn't have any "preference" for 2003 over 2002 or 1500 or 300 BC. So, God, Himself, is either temporal or nontemporal and you can't have it both ways.

That is EXACTLY the way to look at it. His only preference for any point on the line involves His love for the people who exist at that point. Otherwise, from beginning to end the whole thing is just human history as it has and will unfold.

So, all the people born before Jesus are screwed?

Not at all. I don't have to have met Jesus in order to be saved by His sacrifice and neither did any of them. Remember? I'm the guy who believes time is rather irrelevant to God. The event happened at one particular point along the line. WHEN doesn't mean anything to any of the rest of us at any other point. It is only imprtant that it DID happen at one point.

People who never heard of Jesus are screwed? Children who die too young to understand religion are screwed?

I believe Strobel and his friends covered that pretty nicely. I would like to say though that religion doesn't save anyone. Hell I don't understand religion.

Besides, why does God feel some sort of sacrifice is necessary for redemption? Why does God think something has to die in order for redemption to occur? I've heard Christianity summed up as, "For God so loved the world that He send His only begotten son to His people, so that His people would kill His son in order to save His people from Himself". Or, a slight variation on this theme: "God so loved the world that He sacrificed Himself to Himself in order to appease His own wrath at His own creation". Seems like He could have come up with something more direct, don't you think?

I think this should be a different thread as the Satan discussion has already grown lengthy. I'll gladly discuss it though. I'm certain you are going to LOVE my explanation.

I said, "why let Satan do evil in the meantime?" and you responded, "free will". This really doesn't answer the question. If someone is doing evil in our society, we take away their free will, assuming we can catch them.

No we don't. We restrict them. If we execute them we remove their free will but that's another story.

But you see, if God didn't allow rape in the first place, then there would be no need for people to establish clinics, teach self defnese, etc.

Once again you are back to altering the fundamental force of the universe without consideration of what that alternate universe would be. You are insisting that it would be this universe only better. Wrong. It would be a universe in which no one ever suffered, needed help, felt pain or died. In other words it wouldn't be a universe inhabited by humans. How could I show compassion, selflessness and altruism in a universe where no one needed any from me?

Your God is making problems, and providing imperfect solutions.

Allowing problems and imperfect solutions.

If there was no problem to begin with, there would be no need for a solution.

Then we could all live happily ever after in Disneyland.

Thank you but I rather like being human. I like waking up knowing that when I tell my wife that I love her it is meaningful and makes her happy. I like that giving someone a hug when they are having a crappy day means something, makes them happy, and lets them know that I love them. I like that I'm growing older. I like that my kids are growing older but they still need me because life is messy. I like that my 103 year old great aunt is going to die soon. She's a brilliant human being but life is no fun for her any more.

Besides, heaven is not supposed to be like this.

This is earth. Did you miss the sign on the entrance? Heaven is down the road a piece.

Which, by the way, is another problem with the free will argument. Basically, I believe that free will is mostly (perhaps entirely) illusion. Nobody is free from influence. Everybody has influences.

Aw man, I expected better than THAT one from you. It's another game of semantics. Free will isn't free of influence so it isn't really free. Heard it. So apparently if an event doesn't happen in a vacuum, with no precedent and antecedent cause and effect, there are no choices involved right?

Gee, thanks God! You're a pal! Surely you, if you were in the situation where you could stop both the rape and the murder, would do so. So, you would do more than your own God would do.

Yep. I would because I am not God. I am obligated by my love for others and my sense of duty to prevent every evil that I can. God is obligated by His love for humans to do what is best for them. Preventing every evil act perpetrated by one human against another wouldn't allow that.

We've already seen that if there was no problem, there'd be no need for a solution.

Right. Simply remove all free will and problem solved.

Actually, you are. You just don't want to admit it. You said "greater good". What does the term mean? It means it is better, overall, that it happend. Which is in fact justifying it. You are saying it is okay if God says, "this rape is okay because it will result in a greater good". But that would mean that you should never stop a rape or a murder, for it might lead to a greater good! If it isn't going to, surely God would stop it. So, therefore you shouldn't ever interfere.

That was just adorable. It was so cute the way you put God and me at the same level of information and responsibility. You are also giving me credit for knowing that God intends to allow this rape to happen. Apparently He actually placed me there in a position to prevent it but with the knowledge that it shouldn't be prevented. I'm not sure how I would know this but it is your fantasy so you write it however you please.

The really cute part is that you are assigning to me the thought that all rapes might be for some ultimate good so I shouldn't prevent any I happen to be in the position to prevent. I anticipated this tactic, which is why I included the parenthesied statement. You went there anyway like a good little skeptic. I had really thought you were more clever than that. Oh well.

Well, in the book of Job, this is exactly how it is presented. In fact, God admits that He allowed Himself to be talked into ruining Job "for no reason".

God does nothing "for no reason." There is ALWAYS a good reason whether you see it or not and THAT is precisely what the book of Job teaches us.

But are you to honestly tell me that Job would have never cracked, no matter how long Satan tormented him? If there really was this guy Job (of course, I highly doubt it, but if...) that was tormented and yet remained steadfast, all that it would prove is that Job's breaking point is much higher than the average person. But there is nobody who would never crack. Everybody has limited "free will".

I'll use a typical skeptic's ploy here, and apparently one of Don's favorites. You would have to be omniscient to know that Job would eventually have cracked. Terms like nobody and never are usually a bad choice. However, I do understand that you mean, based on what you know of humans, it is highly probable that every last human has a breaking point. We can't be sure though can we? Actually, some people have endured unbelievable torment right up to the point of death.

Well, more or less by definition, if the supernatural exists, anything is possible. Including scrambling my brain cells, changing my memories, shooting intense pain, anything. So, if Satan has that kind of power, sure, he should be completely irresistible.

He might be if unimpeded by God I suppose but this is all conjecture on both of our parts.

Suppose that Satan does scramble your brains and you suddenly claim you are Jesus and jump off of a tall building. Do you suppose God would hold you accountable for your actions after the brainscrambling? Interesting.

1. Proof positive of God's existence means somebody would not have free will to turn away from God.
2. Therefore, God does not give man proof positive of his existence.
3. Satan had proof positive that God exists.
4. Satan still had free will to turn away from God.

Point 4 disproves point 1.

Point 1 is incorrect. Proof positive that God exists would only elicit terror in His enemies and drive them to insincere expressions of adoration. That is why He doesn't do it. consider how many of the phony christians out there are just talking it up about God out of fear of going to hell. He gives us all the proof we need. For some people there IS no such thing as proof positive.

Basically, you are dividing up God's creatures into two camps, those who are in heaven, and once they rebel, have no recourse; and humans who can rebel up to a point and yet still be forgiven.

Yes, I know. I was there when I did it.

But, in this scenerio, humans, after they die, then get placed into category 1. They are then in heaven. And, according to your theory, humans are then subject to the "one-strike and you're out" rule of heaven. So, in your scenario, humans, rather than having an advantage over the other heavenly entities who only get the one-strike rule, humans really get the double whammy. They could first screw up on Earth. But if they pass that test and get to heaven, then, like any other heavenly creature, they could still screw up and get thrown out. No advantage--a double whammy.

The advantage is that humans already know what it is like to rebel against God, having already done it all of their lives in innumerable ways. They will have already learned that it leads to nothing but grief and loss.

Now, how many people do you know that will never screw up for all eternity? With that one-strike rule, heaven is gonna be mighy empty after a while...

That would assume that nothing about those humans has changed as they pass from this mortal coil into Heaven. Hell, masturbation alone would get every human ever thrown out but do you really think we'll still feel the urge or the need to do that? I think things will be quite a bit different in Heaven. I could only speculate on the ways that would be so.

This post represents several hours of my life. I hope I didn't bore you too much.:) I'm enjoying the discussion. Lately the skeptics over at my usual forum have been lightweights. It's nice to meet a couple of guys who can bring it. That would be you too Don, because I know you've read this whole mess and laughed and clucked and shook your head at the silly apologist.:)

Dean

[OAG]

Feel free to have the last word.

OK

I doubt if you would be impressed if I were to say, "Bigfoot was PERFECTLY obvious to some people," yet you use a story which I believe to be fictional from a book which contains a considerable amount of plagiarized mythology, to try to convince me that a mythological character such as Satan made a choice to disobey. I am unimpressed. And I think that this discussion has devolved to the point of silliness.

-Don-

They found the guy who made the Bigfoot footprints. Show me the guy who made God's footprints all over creation and we'll talk.

Dean

[Biff the unclean]

"God's footprints all over creation" is a metaphor right? Like Jesus promising to come back in the lifetimes of his audience is a metaphor for thousands upon thousands of years. Let me guess, this one is a metaphoric way of saying "without a single shred of evidence"?

[Paul Doland]

My reply of last night also took a couple of hours. (You know I got to the end of your response because that is where you mention your response taking a couple of hours :) )

Likewise, it will again take some time to digest and respond once again...

[Paul Doland]

I don't understand how you and Don can wrap your logic around removing an option and still having it be a possible choice. You must be using an alien logic or terminology unfamiliar to me.

Its real simple. Say that God really hates strawberry ice cream. And anybody that would pick strawberry ice cream when offered it is doomed to hell or nonexistence. But lets say you didn't know that. So God says to you, "Well, Dean, I've got some chocolate ice cream for you, and some strawberry, which would you like"? And you say, "I'll take the chocolate". And God says, "actually, I knew you were going to pick chocolate; and if you were going to pick strawberry, I wouldn't have created you.". You still had the choice. You didn't know that picking strawberry would have been a bad thing to do. You just picked chocolate, and picked right.

I have not found God hiding in shadows. I have found Him quite easily because He wanted me to find Him.

Well, if you have no problem finding God, ask Him one, simple, direct question, and get a direct, clear answer. It doesn't matter what you ask, but it has to be something that you don't know the answer to, but you can then verify the answer is correct. I dunno, the atomic weight of iron, whatever. That should be easy for anybody with a "relationship" with the Almighty.

BTW, I don't recall any Biblical reference to God locking someone in a room and lighting it on fire.

Hell is a "room" of sorts is it not?

Unnecessary and unwarranted by what standard, what reference point? What you are saying to me is that YOU define evil as anything YOU decide it is. If YOU decide that someone's pain was unnecessary or unwarranted, regardless of circumstances you may know nothing about, then it BECOMES an evil.

Okay, now you're on the "universal standard of morality" that God supposedly provides. The problem is, even if God has defined some universal standard of morality, He has been terribly remiss in communicating it clearly. On every moral subject, birth control, abortion, homosexuality, etc., you can find Christians that argue on each side. So, the bottom line is, whether or not God has made such a standard is moot as nobody knows what the hell it is. At least until He tells us in clear terms, then there is no universal standard of morality, and it is just relative. I can tell for myself what to me is "unnecessary or unwarrented" pain and sufferring. And I can extrapolate from there what other people would likely find unnecessary or unwarrented. That's about all I can do, along with talking to other people and getting their input on the subject.

It is quite simple. If Adam and Eve were never going to die then it stands to reason that they would not age, as we know it, either. One cannot age forever. What is the passage of time to someone unaffected by it?

Someone in the other thread already answered this better than I can, but I'll add this. Not aging is not at all equivalent to not affected by time. I don't notice being older than yesterday, I didn't age a significant amount from yesterday. But, that has nothing to do with the fact that I can only experience one moment at a time, in progression. *That* is what being a temporal being means.

Quite simple. At that point in the t/s continuum those people would perish. That was unfortunate. It was unfortunate that so many of them chose to rebel in som many heinous ways. Quite regrettable.

What you don't seem to be understanding is that emotions are reactionary. You experience "regret" when things don't work out the way you expected them to. If, before God ever created the universe, He knew that he was going to flood the world, then He could hardly experience "regret". And, really, all emotions are like that. Emotions are really incompatible with omnicience.

Genesis refers to the Nephilim. I'll leave the rest to your discretion. Since there is no later mention of the Nephilim I believe God succeeded

Well, the Nephilim are also mentioned in Numbers 13:33, so he also failed, at least via the flood, to get rid of them too.

Things happen that He doesn't know is going to happen until it does.That statement is unsupportable

It's easily supportable. God many times asks questions, questions that if He knew everything that ever had or ever will happen, he'd need never ask. Here is Job 1:7:

The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD , "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

How could God be asking a question if He knew for all eternity that Satan at that moment, had come "from roaming the earth"?

And even more directly, Satan clearly doesn't know what will happen:

"Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."

If God knows everything that will ever happen, surely Satan would know that God knows that. Therefore, Satan would have never asked the question to begin with for he would know that if Job would ever crack, God would know it already. So he'd have no need to ask the question.

As I said, even with God, in the Bible, things progress moment by moment, temporally.

God does nothing "for no reason."

Job 2:3 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."

No we don't. We restrict them. If we execute them we remove their free will but that's another story.

Well, we do execute people, so yes, we do totally take away free will sometimes. But, you're arguing semantics now. We take away the free will to do more harm to society, or at least attempt to do so, by incarceration. Similarly, there is no plausible reason why God would not sufficiently limit Satan's free will to do more harm.

I believe Strobel and his friends covered that pretty nicely.

I don't think Strobel and his buddies covered that worth jack. (See my Strobel critique, chapters 4, 5 and 8 having the most relevant material)

That would assume that nothing about those humans has changed as they pass from this mortal coil into Heaven

Actually, that brings up a whole nuther big topic, that I don't really feel like going into great depth at this point. But, the point is, if people really do live forever in heaven, they'd have to be so different from our mortal selves to be essentially unreconizable. What do you do every day? Sleep. Get up. Take a dump. Take a shower. Brush your teeth. Go to work. Eat some food sometime during the day. Go home. Maybe watch some TV, perhaps have sex with your partner. Now, what of that would you do in heaven? None. You heavenly life would be so different as to make your earthly life completely irrelevant.

Also, you make the common theistic assertion that skeptics are "enemies" of God. I'm no more his enemy that Zeus. I just don't think they exist.

[OAG]

Originally posted by Paul Doland
[B]Its real simple. Say that God really hates strawberry ice cream. And anybody that would pick strawberry ice cream when offered it is doomed to hell or nonexistence. But lets say you didn't know that. So God says to you, "Well, Dean, I've got some chocolate ice cream for you, and some strawberry, which would you like"? And you say, "I'll take the chocolate". And God says, "actually, I knew you were going to pick chocolate; and if you were going to pick strawberry, I wouldn't have created you.". You still had the choice. You didn't know that picking strawberry would have been a bad thing to do. You just picked chocolate, and picked right.

That's a good story and you tell it well. However, you still refuse to acknowledge that God has made the choice not me. God will have made the choice to create me or not. The existence of the strawberry ice cream does not represent a choice because God doesn't allow anyone to choose it.

Well, if you have no problem finding God, ask Him one, simple, direct question, and get a direct, clear answer. It doesn't matter what you ask, but it has to be something that you don't know the answer to, but you can then verify the answer is correct. I dunno, the atomic weight of iron, whatever. That should be easy for anybody with a "relationship" with the Almighty.

I asked Him if my girlfriend was the woman I should spend the rest of my life with in holy matrimony and He answered, 'Yes'. He was right about that one. I asked Him the iron one and was told the same thing my earthly father told me, "Go look it up. Ya got a broken leg?"

Hell is a "room" of sorts is it not?

I don't think so but if you do who am I to say you're wrong. I'm not sure you'd call what I've seen hell. It was more like an outer darkness, no walls, no flames, no tormenter, nothing at all like a room.

Okay, now you're on the "universal standard of morality" that God supposedly provides. The problem is, even if God has defined some universal standard of morality, He has been terribly remiss in communicating it clearly.

I like how that is always God's fault. It couldn't be that humans are remiss in understanding it clearly. Based on all of the evidence for how well and clearly humans understand everything else it isn't possible any misunderstanding is our fault. Nope, it has to be that God just can't do anything right.

On every moral subject, birth control, abortion, homosexuality, etc., you can find Christians that argue on each side.

So why is that God's fault? They aren't puppets dancing on strings for Him so how is He responsible for how they argue?

So, the bottom line is, whether or not God has made such a standard is moot as nobody knows what the hell it is.

Well you are possibly the first skeptic I've ever encountered who wasn't a Randian objectivist and actually understands that humans are subjective about everything.

At least until He tells us in clear terms, then there is no universal standard of morality, and it is just relative.

Hence the wiggle room to screw up, even unintentionally, and still be forgiven. We cannot and do not know the depth, breadth and number of our offenses to God. That's why I always found Catholic confession kind of silly.

I can tell for myself what to me is "unnecessary or unwarrented" pain and sufferring. And I can extrapolate from there what other people would likely find unnecessary or unwarrented. That's about all I can do, along with talking to other people and getting their input on the subject.

Quite true. We can only do what we judge to be the right thing based on whatever criteria we have. That is simply the nature of human morality. That has nothing to do with what is truly evil or not. Your guess is as good as mine. The only difference is I tend to gauge my judgement of evil against God as my standard. You seem to gauge yours against a gut feeling.

I don't notice being older than yesterday, I didn't age a significant amount from yesterday. But, that has nothing to do with the fact that I can only experience one moment at a time, in progression. *That* is what being a temporal being means.

That means that if you notice the passing of time, in spite of not being effected by it, you are a temporal being? I disagree. I think time must have a real effect on the being in question. You may not notice being older but you are. You are progressing inevitably and invariably closer to the moment of your expiration. Your existence in time has a beginning and an end and each moment in between has dozens, perhaps millions of effects on you.

Perhaps I overstated Adam and Eve's immunity to time before the fall. Obviously they felt hunger followed by eating to satisfy that hunger. These events suggest they are temporal beings effected by time. However, if they were not aging or dying then the passage of huge amounts of time wouldn't have much meaning.

What you don't seem to be understanding is that emotions are reactionary. You experience "regret" when things don't work out the way you expected them to.

Nonsense. Expectations are not necessary to the equation. However, even if you anticipate exactly how an event will come out you can regret that it must be that way.

If, before God ever created the universe, He knew that he was going to flood the world, then He could hardly experience "regret".

I thought I gave a very good analogy for that but...oh well. Why not? The moment that He knew this was an eventuality, why wouldn't He experience the regret that it was inevitable and necessary? Who says He hadn't experienced that regret from "day one"? He merely expressed it on day whatever when the flood was due to happen.

This is just another mask to the If God knew creation would go wrong why did He go through with it? approach. That is easily answered.

And, really, all emotions are like that. Emotions are really incompatible with omnicience.

Not at all. Emotions are compatible with everything. Good or bad, right or wrong, they are just a part of existence.

Well, the Nephilim are also mentioned in Numbers 13:33, so he also failed, at least via the flood, to get rid of them too.

Verse 32 says they spread a bad report..you know, a lie.

The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD , "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

You've got to be kidding me. I do that same thing to my son when I ask Him how school was even though the principal already called. Just because God wanted to hear an answer doesn't mean He didn't already know it.

If God knows everything that will ever happen, surely Satan would know that God knows that. Therefore, Satan would have never asked the question to begin with for he would know that if Job would ever crack, God would know it already. So he'd have no need to ask the question.

No one ever said Satan was omniscient. You don't think Satan would try anything and everything to get each and every human being? You think he'd just figure God wins and go home without attempting something? You don't think Satan would get a kick out of watching Job lose everything and suffer horribly even if in the end Job would prove righteous? Satan got to watch a man suffer. I'll bet he lives for that crap.

As I said, even with God, in the Bible, things progress moment by moment, temporally.

The Bible is a story about the temporal universe. What do you expect?

Well, we do execute people, so yes, we do totally take away free will sometimes.

Technically we only take their life. It may seem a minor technicality but it becomes a major one in light of eternity and afterlife and all of those things we are discussing.

We take away the free will to do more harm to society, or at least attempt to do so, by incarceration. Similarly, there is no plausible reason why God would not sufficiently limit Satan's free will to do more harm.

How could you be certain that He doesn't? A cop shooting a person in mid murder might deprive the person of the ability to complete the task but doesn't necessarily effect their will to do so. However, lets lay that the person being attacked also fights back. He may prevent the murder himself without the cop's help.

I don't think Strobel and his buddies covered that worth jack. (See my Strobel critique, chapters 4, 5 and 8 having the most relevant material)

I anticipated that even without reading that portion of your critique.

Here we will simply disagree. I could answer your critique but I'm sure, just as I anticipated your assessment of that portion of Strobel's book, you can anticipate MY assessment of your critique of it.

Actually, that brings up a whole nuther big topic, that I don't really feel like going into great depth at this point. But, the point is, if people really do live forever in heaven, they'd have to be so different from our mortal selves to be essentially unreconizable. What do you do every day? Sleep. Get up. Take a dump. Take a shower. Brush your teeth. Go to work. Eat some food sometime during the day. Go home. Maybe watch some TV, perhaps have sex with your partner. Now, what of that would you do in heaven? None. You heavenly life would be so different as to make your earthly life completely irrelevant.

You were doing fine up until the "irrelevant" part. Your earthly life is the precedent for your heavenly one so it remains relevant.

ou make the common theistic assertion that skeptics are "enemies" of God. I'm no more his enemy that Zeus. I just don't think they exist.

If God exists, we're all His enemy in a manner of speaking. Otherwise I'm not sure where you believe I made that assertion. If I did use the word enemy I meant it in the nicest way possible.:) Seriously though, there is a sort of antagonist, protagonist thing that happens here. Which is which depends on your POV but to a skeptic both God and His followers are the antagonists right? God becomes a real antagonist because His followers believe He is real. I doubt anybody has ever told you that Zues was going to be your judge and you were going to hadesl. You don't have to verify that a Christian or two has told you that, about God that is. I'm sure of it. It happens to me all the time and I don't tell them I'm an atheist.:)

[Paul Doland]

That's a good story and you tell it well. However, you still refuse to acknowledge that God has made the choice not me. God will have made the choice to create me or not. The existence of the strawberry ice cream does not represent a choice because God doesn't allow anyone to choose it.

So, lets say God did allow someone to pick strawberry. How would the fact that somebody else picked strawberry, and got sent to hell impact your choice of chocolate? You are claiming that every choice that nobody takes is not a choice. If nobody on earth would pick a chocolate/beer/motor oil ice cream doesn't mean that chocolate/beer/motor oil ice cream isn't a choice. In fact, assuming that nobody would pick chocolate/beer/motor oil ice cream, that would mean that God made us such that nobody picked that choice.

I asked Him if my girlfriend was the woman I should spend the rest of my life with in holy matrimony and He answered, 'Yes'. He was right about that one.

Your example is exactly my point, God seems to only tell people what they really decide on their own. I've known plenty of people who swear that God led them to do something, only to have God aparantly change his mind. But if you really had this "relationship" with God, then there should be some tangible evidence for it. If your only "evidence" is what looks all the world to me as simply your own decision that you somehow credit to God, then you haven't produced any evidence.

You've got to be kidding me. I do that same thing to my son when I ask Him how school was even though the principal already called. Just because God wanted to hear an answer doesn't mean He didn't already know it.

1. You're assuming stuff that isn't there, it doesn't say that God already knew.
2. God regularly asks these kinds of questions in the Bible. Your explanation must mean that God all the time asks questions that He already knows the answer to.
3. Most of the time, when questions are asked, it is because you don't know the answer. Assuming that the opposite is true, that God asks questions that He knows the answer already, requires more evidence than, 'that's just gotta be the way it is'.

Unless you can give a good reason for your interpretation, and assuming stuff that isn't there isn't a good reason, then one must conclude your explanation is "ad hoc".

The Bible is a story about the temporal universe. What do you expect?

God and Satan supposedly exist outside the temporal universe. They may be talking about the temporal universe, but the setting of at least Satan and God's converstaion is not.

No one ever said Satan was omniscient.

Well, I believe you said he was non-temporal, and exists outside the temporal universe. Which would mean that he would indeed be omnicient about what happens at least in this universe because all of the past and future would be visible to someone that exists outside of time.

But, say I'm wrong and Satan is a temporal being. The idea of challenging God, as Satan does, only makes any sense if God doesn't know everything that would happen. If Satan knows that God knows everything that ever happens, challenging Him would make no sense.

You don't think Satan would get a kick out of watching Job lose everything and suffer horribly even if in the end Job would prove righteous? Satan got to watch a man suffer. I'll bet he lives for that crap.

Actually, the idea of a being that is so different from us that he lives in another dimension as Satan does, and yet really give a shit what we do or what happens to us seems rather improbable.

It couldn't be that humans are remiss in understanding it clearly.

If that is true, it must be our nature to not be able to understand clearly. And who designed our nature?

So why is that God's fault? They aren't puppets dancing on strings for Him so how is He responsible for how they argue?

He could try explaining the parts that people find confusing.

That means that if you notice the passing of time, in spite of not being effected by it, you are a temporal being?

As I was trying to say, aging as nothing to do with whether you are affected by time or not. As you seem to realize when you note that they get hungry. Whether I aged since yesterday or not has nothing to do with the fact that yesterday is past and I can't go back. And whether I will age between now and tomorrow has nothing to do with the fact that I don't know what will happen tomorrow until it happens. Yes, this is what being a temporal being is.

[OAG]

Originally posted by Paul Doland
So, lets say God did allow someone to pick strawberry. How would the fact that somebody else picked strawberry, and got sent to hell impact your choice of chocolate?

It wouldn't. THAT scenario allows for two different people to make two different choices with two different consequences.

You are claiming that every choice that nobody takes is not a choice.

No. I'm claiming that any choice nobody is allowed to make is not a choice. In your scenario where God doesn't create people who would make choice 2 the potential for making that choice is removed entirely. Logic dictates that a choice only exists where free will to choose is present. It doesn't matter to you scenario that God creates only people who choose chocolate because PRIOR to that God has made the choice of chocolate the only option for anyone in existence. The option for choosing strawberry simply doesn't ever exist outside of God's precognition.

If nobody on earth would pick a chocolate/beer/motor oil ice cream doesn't mean that chocolate/beer/motor oil ice cream isn't a choice. In fact, assuming that nobody would pick chocolate/beer/motor oil ice cream, that would mean that God made us such that nobody picked that choice.

Don't be sure some people wouldn't try it just to see if it were palatable. They might not finish it. They might only taste it on a dare. The fact is that it is a real choice. For better or worse it is an available choice.

We can go around a few more times on this but the fact is your logic doesn't wash. By eliminating the choosers you are eliminating the choice. It is very simple and you've tried myriad ways to siggle out from under the obvious conslusion that your premise is flawed. You desperately need to believe that God, if He really did exist, could have and would have done things differently. The fact that YOUR different way of creating humans denies them free will to choose would mean that there is no possible way for God to have done it differently. You can't abide that because you want so badly for there to be incontrovertible evidence that God doesn't exist. Keep looking though.

Your example is exactly my point, God seems to only tell people what they really decide on their own. I've known plenty of people who swear that God led them to do something, only to have God aparantly change his mind. But if you really had this "relationship" with God, then there should be some tangible evidence for it. If your only "evidence" is what looks all the world to me as simply your own decision that you somehow credit to God, then you haven't produced any evidence.

That's right. I have not pulled God out of a hat for you. I can't. The evidence for God is something you will have to seek and find for yourself. That is just the way it works. Just like any other scientific investigation you begin with a theory and look for evidence to support that theory. My anecdotal evidence can be easily dismissed by you or anyone else. However, from where I'm sitting I have asked things of God and I have gotten answers. BS you say? Don't believe me then. It makes no real difference to me. You have not seen MY evidence because you weren't there, you didn't ask the questions and you didn't get the answers. Therefor you can deny them much more readily than I can because it is anecdotal to you.

1. You're assuming stuff that isn't there, it doesn't say that God already knew.

In order for YOU to believe He did not know you have to believe God is not omniscient. THAT is an assumption that does NOT follow from everything else the Bible says. MY assumption logically proceeds from God's omniscience.

2. God regularly asks these kinds of questions in the Bible. Your explanation must mean that God all the time asks questions that He already knows the answer to.

I do it, don't you? Many times I want to actually hear the person say it because even though I know full well they are going to, it makes them having said it incontrovertible. If I simply say that I know what they were thinking or what they were going to say they could deny it. Once they've said it and everybody present heard them, they can no longer deny it.

3. Most of the time, when questions are asked, it is because you don't know the answer. Assuming that the opposite is true, that God asks questions that He knows the answer already, requires more evidence than, 'that's just gotta be the way it is'.

How about the context of the question, the circumstances under which it is asked, the motivations and intentions of the person to whom the question is asked? All of these things can effect the WHY of God asking questions for which He already knows the answer. If nothing else God is a brilliant psychologist.

Unless you can give a good reason for your interpretation, and assuming stuff that isn't there isn't a good reason, then one must conclude your explanation is "ad hoc".

My explanation is not "ad hoc". It follows logically from God's claim of omniscience, God's demonstration of His omniscience on many occasions, and my experiences and interactions with human beings, especially as a father to my children.

God and Satan supposedly exist outside the temporal universe. They may be talking about the temporal universe, but the setting of at least Satan and God's converstaion is not.

So?

Well, I believe you said he was non-temporal, and exists outside the temporal universe. Which would mean that he would indeed be omnicient about what happens at least in this universe because all of the past and future would be visible to someone that exists outside of time.

Gold star. That is exactly what I said and what I believe.

But, say I'm wrong and Satan is a temporal being. The idea of challenging God, as Satan does, only makes any sense if God doesn't know everything that would happen. If Satan knows that God knows everything that ever happens, challenging Him would make no sense.

Rebelling against God makes no sense right? Since Satan did that I'd say we have a precedent for Satan using poor judgement.

Actually, the idea of a being that is so different from us that he lives in another dimension as Satan does, and yet really give a shit what we do or what happens to us seems rather improbable.

Perhaps. OTOH, I find it very probable that Satan, being a real bad guy and all, would have nothing better to do with eternity than try his damndest to ruin God's amazing creation. I can easily imagine how angry Satan must be that we get to tell God to get screwed and then change our mind and ask for forgiveness and get it. Satan told God to get screwed and he can never ever take it back and have God's love again. Sucks to be him and rules to be us. Satan is the firstborn who screwed himself out of his inheritance. We're the beloved bastard children that are getting that inheritance. It doesn't surprise me that he would hate and resent us.

If that is true, it must be our nature to not be able to understand clearly. And who designed our nature?

If we could understand everything clearly we would BE God and have no need of Him. The point is that we don't need to understand every little detail clearly. The cornerstone to the thing is so simple that children and retarded people can get it. God loves you like a father, God did this amazing thing so that you can live with Him when you die, and God wants you to love Him like a father in return. Children respond to this with, "OK!" They get it. That is why the kingdome of heaven belongs to such as them.

He could try explaining the parts that people find confusing.

He did. People killed Him for His troubles so that they could happily go on being confused and confusing others.

You see, in complete defiance of everything you know about human nature, you keep insisting that it is somehow possible to unconfuse them all, make them all see clearly, craft a better, more perfect human. It's a nice fantasy but it can not and will not work with real human beings. Some people adore their delusions. Some people would kill you for trying to make them give up their self-destructive actions. Some people simply do NOT want to listen to reason. I've met more than a few of those on these forums. Try to talk sense into the guy with his fingers in his ears saying,"Nyah nyah nyah, I can't hear you!"

As I was trying to say, aging as nothing to do with whether you are affected by time or not. As you seem to realize when you note that they get hungry. Whether I aged since yesterday or not has nothing to do with the fact that yesterday is past and I can't go back. And whether I will age between now and tomorrow has nothing to do with the fact that I don't know what will happen tomorrow until it happens. Yes, this is what being a temporal being is.

Right. That's why I admitted my mistake in saying they were not temporal. I meant that they were not mortal. They did not inch closer to death with the passage of time as we do now, after the fall. The death that God promised them wasn't a lightning bolt to cash them in on the spot. It was the immediate loss of their immortality. From the moment they rebelled they were going to die. Before that they were not...IMHO.

You're pretty good at this Paul. The one guy from the other forum that was as good as you stopped coming around. He was a guy from Ireland with amazing clarity and good manners. In spite of the fact that we disagreed ontologically he invited me to visit him when I take my wife to the Emerald Isle and I intend to. I imagine we'll have some great debates over copious amounts of Irish booze...or get in a fist fight.:)

[Paul Doland]

We can go around a few more times on this but the fact is your logic doesn't wash.

It certainly does wash and is completely logical. Of course, I can't force you to agree. But it seems obvious to me.

Gold star. That is exactly what I said and what I believe.

??? Huh? I said that clearly Satan doesn't know what is going to happen, because he challenges God that if God ruins Job, Job would surely curse God to his face. And you said that nobody said Satan was omnicient. Then I said that if Satan is non-temporal, he would be omnicient for at least this universe. And you now say "that is exactly what I said"? No, you said exactly the opposite, you said Satan was not omnicient and therefore wouldn't know what would happen.

I find it very probable that Satan, being a real bad guy and all, would have nothing better to do with eternity than try his damndest to ruin God's amazing creation.

Which brings us full circle, there isn't any plausible reason for God allowing Satan to try to ruin His creation, and free will doesn't wash, as there is no reason He wouldn't limit Satan's free will to not be able to ruin it.

[OAG]

Originally posted by Paul Doland
It certainly does wash and is completely logical. Of course, I can't force you to agree. But it seems obvious to me.

That is apparent. I guess we could modify an old saying with one man's logic...

I said that clearly Satan doesn't know what is going to happen, because he challenges God that if God ruins Job, Job would surely curse God to his face. And you said that nobody said Satan was omnicient. Then I said that if Satan is non-temporal, he would be omnicient for at least this universe. And you now say "that is exactly what I said"? No, you said exactly the opposite, you said Satan was not omnicient and therefore wouldn't know what would happen.

Satan's lack of omniscience (there is an s in there BTW. Sorry, I used to teach reading and writing and old habits die hard.) would mean that Satan couldn't know what Job's thoughts were or would be. He was guessing at that. I think Satan knowing the future in the temporal sense would not prevent him from going for it. As I said, he got to watch a guy's life get ruined and inflict torture on the guy. Win or lose in the end, I believe it would be consistent with Satan's character to take the intermediate torture over leaving the guy completely alone.

Which brings us full circle, there isn't any plausible reason for God allowing Satan to try to ruin His creation, and free will doesn't wash, as there is no reason He wouldn't limit Satan's free will to not be able to ruin it.

Just because YOU can't think of a reason does not mean God didn't have one, or two, or dozens. As Roger Waters pointed out in his lyrics, What God wants, God gets.

[ferret]

I'm not sure of the aim or intent of Paul's article, but I just noticed three things I thought I'd bring to light for his consideration. I won't rant or preach, just try to present passages and give minimal comments...

Regarding the arguments about God knowing before-hand that Satan would be evil and still creating him and not locking him up:

I would say 2 Peter 3:9 applies here. God is longsuffering, that is, he puts up with man's disobedience for a long time desiring to give everyone a fair shake. This is much like a parent letting a child "make their own mistakes" after warning them of the consequences. The parent doesn't want the child to make the mistake, but knows it is necessary in order for the child to learn obedience and the consequences of bad choices.

As for why wouldn't Satan just put everyone in pain 'til they pledge allegiance to him, I just point you to Job chapter 1. I'll let you read that for yourself.

And lastly all this still presumes God created Satan in the first place. I personally have found no evidence either way as to whether Satan was created by God or not.

I'm aware of Luke 10:18 which speaks of Satan falling from heaven, but it says he fell "as lightning" which makes me think of simile and not necessarily literally falling from heaven where God is. I'm also aware of Revelation 12:7-9 and this doesn't settle in my mind that Satan was ever in Heaven & then cast out either. Lastly, I know that James and Revelation speak of Satan's angels, but the word angel comes from aggelos meaning angel *OR* messenger.

I may not have changed your mind, but hopefully I've given you more to chew on & hopefully I've also benefited you in some positive way spiritually speaking.

[-DM-]

Thank you for your feedback regarding The Implausibility of Satan (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=310) by Paul Doland. E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response from the author following this post. In the meantime, a few comments. According to Christian theology, everything was created by "God"--no exceptions. Therefore, "Satan" would have to have been created by "God." And although the Bible may say that "God" is long-suffering to the point that He puts up with man's disobedience, "Satan" is not a man in any normal sense. But more importantly, there is no particular reason to take on face value what the Bible says to begin with. I agree with Doland: I find "Satan" extremely implausible--on any basis.

-DM-

[caseagainstfaith]

Hello, and thank you for reading my article. As to your comments:


I would say 2 Peter 3:9 applies here. God is longsuffering, that is, he puts up with man's disobedience for a long time desiring to give everyone a fair shake. This is much like a parent letting a child "make their own mistakes" after warning them of the consequences.

So, during WWII, was God in heaven saying, "well, I don't really approve of Hitler exterminating the Jews, but some things you just gotta figure out on your own"? Is that what Hitler's mother should have said? Of course I know that using Hitler is a cliche, but the point I'm trying to make is, the parent/child analogy might work for minor indescressions. But the analogy falls apart when talking about significant wrongs. A parent might hold their tongue when a child doesn't clean up his or her room up on time. But no reasonable parent would hold their tongue if the child burns the house down.


As for why wouldn't Satan just put everyone in pain 'til they pledge allegiance to him, I just point you to Job chapter 1. I'll let you read that for yourself.

I don't see how Job 1 answers the question at all. God said that Satan couldn't physically harm Job, but aparantly since God didn't specifically say anything about Job's servants or children, they were "fair game" to be killed any way Satan